My cell-phone just beeped telling me there is action in this thread...
R U ready to re-walk those 10 paces, & re-think where U will point
your gun, when it's time to turn around, & fire it ???...

Yes, it's a dare... With a proposed ending?... ESPN takes in alot of
ad revenue profit... We shave every morning with million $$$ razors
from the Gillette Company... In turn, ESPN says profit means a free
trip to tropical islands, & icy drinks on a sand-floor, in the sun... -&-
they call it "investigative reporting"... HGH, & stem cells, will reveal
themselves there, & they rely on U 2 believe 'em...

Your brain can benefit more from not wasting time, considering that
other numbers will prove a point that deems stolen bases as MORE
valuable than homeruns, but not having numbers to try to prove that
MTrout is worth looking @ in mid-season, only gives the impression
that U clearly desire to be getting residual checks in the mail, -just 4
coveting the proprietary numbers of others...

It would be very different if U were on 2 something that could bring U
such a position in real life... But, it's my opinion that U & a foundation
from which U platform your frustrations, the very numbers which say
that Babe Ruth is only 10% better than anybody in baseball history, is
a helium-filled balloon, that will inevitably succumb to the 'pressures'
of an outer-atmosphere...

What goes up, must come down... The bell-curve here, that makes it
all work, will be useless 2 U, like playing golf with a hockey stick... -&
the MTrout that U R trying to create with your no.#'s, simultaneously is
like a rigid fishing pole, with no flex... U R trying to kick field-goals that
need to be 70-yarders, but, -the footballs U kick are barely measuring
out at maybe a guess'd strained 39 yards...

Last clue here, Mr-Math-Magician-w/-Invisible-Numbers... Watch what
an NFL 'FG' kicker does this weekend... There's a WHIP factor with his
motion, from start to follow-thru finish... Nolan Ryan's arm motions act
with resemblance to a WHIP-like action, and the curve of Tiger Wood's
club in slow-mo replay, where it's curve is like a WHIP as it make's it's
contact with the ball, OR even simply casting a fishing-line, snapping it
with your wrist, & WHIPping it another 25 + feet...

Simply put, math has a simply great measuring device for this WHIP...
The parabola, interestingly an equation that resembles a football... It's
capable of explaining why the sun takes 49 years to do what the moon
takes 50 years to do... The parabola is the simplest mathematical end
to solve the Nolan Ryan profile, in numeric terms of the WHIP...

But, the parabola got introduced by the slide-rule, in E-Z'r math classes
of long ago...

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):1. He was a ****** hitter when he first came up.
2. He got hurt.
3. He played well enough this year to make the All Star team
4. He was suspended in Biogenesis scandal.

Regardless, you either need a time machine or (god forbid) stats if you want to evaluate how well he played. People that like baseball tend to want to do things like evaluate how well a guy played.

Or, God forbid, I just don't care enough about a guy that's played for 5 ******* years and I still don't know who he is to argue about his defensive value. Or work my panties into a bunch because I can't put a NUMERIC VALUE to his defensive prowess using "what we have".

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):1. He was a ****** hitter when he first came up.
2. He got hurt.
3. He played well enough this year to make the All Star team
4. He was suspended in Biogenesis scandal.

Regardless, you either need a time machine or (god forbid) stats if you want to evaluate how well he played. People that like baseball tend to want to do things like evaluate how well a guy played.

Or, God forbid, I just don't care enough about a guy that's played for 5 ******* years and I still don't know who he is to argue about his defensive value. Or work my panties into a bunch because I can't put a NUMERIC VALUE to his defensive prowess using "what we have".

Some people who like baseball get curious about players they don't get to see play very often. Stats help with that.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't use the defensive stats that we have available now because they aren't good or because defensive stats are unnecessary?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):1. He was a ****** hitter when he first came up.
2. He got hurt.
3. He played well enough this year to make the All Star team
4. He was suspended in Biogenesis scandal.

Regardless, you either need a time machine or (god forbid) stats if you want to evaluate how well he played. People that like baseball tend to want to do things like evaluate how well a guy played.

Or, God forbid, I just don't care enough about a guy that's played for 5 ******* years and I still don't know who he is to argue about his defensive value. Or work my panties into a bunch because I can't put a NUMERIC VALUE to his defensive prowess using "what we have".

Some people who like baseball get curious about players they don't get to see play very often. Stats help with that.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't use the defensive stats that we have available now because they aren't good or because defensive stats are unnecessary?

Some people don't have time to worry about some non-descript SS on the Padres.

I'm arguing that no one on this site fully understands what goes behind with these new "defensive metrics". However, we seem to universally agree that they appear to be inconsistent and, for some, "it's the best we have." Do you disagree?